And I guess finally, I've been looking for days for a book that covers the events surrounding the formation of the Republican party. There are countless books about the lead up to the Civil War but seems to be no book that covers specifically the details of the Republican party formation: who, where and how it fermented (from its beginnings in a small town in MI), what interests it aligned, how did the Southern Whigs/Southern sympathizers get tossed, how did the platform countered the predecessors' platforms, and what the actions of the Free Soil and Whig parties did in response to the new player.

I know that's a ton of questions, I'd be extraordinarily grateful to anyone who could provide me with an answer to any part of this and a book they believe will elaborate on the questions further! Thanks!

Being raised in a Christian school, one of our first topics in almost any American History class I took was whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It's been several years since then, and I remember discussions and a strong bias coming from the fact I went to a Christian school, emphasizing the fact that many of the founding fathers were Christian.

So, in reality, was the United States founded as a Christian nation?

Was much of the text actually written by him, or was it instead mostly written by his administrators? I know there have been a few Napoleon posts today, but those are what made me wonder about this so I figured I'd ask anyway.

I am writing my final essay (worth 67%) on revolution in 20th century china and i want to know what social and political changes were brought about by the 1912 Republic of China.

Eg. Changed government entrance exams?

Changed focus of education?

Attempts to 'modernize'?

I have looked all over the internet and google scholar please help guys just need a few changes they made.

Cheers :D

I wasn't sure how to put this in the title so I will clarify here. When I say "classically portrayed firing squad", I am talking about rifles, pistols, and even sub-machine guns. If someone was executed with a sniper rifle or a civil war era Gatling gun I would want to know. Basically any weapon that wasn't historically used in common practice.

I want to know if people were ever executed with a hail of crossbow bolts or an arrow from a sharpshooter. Maybe a group of people where burned with a flame thrower or someone thought it was a good idea to use several blunderbuss at range.

It has to be an execution using ranged weaponry of some kind. Aside from the classic firing squad or a single man putting a bullet in someone, I can't really think of any time when other ranged means of executing "criminals" were used, but I'm no expert.

And just to clarify execution; "The carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person". Even if the sentencing was done informally and hastily by some mid to low ranking officer in a group of privateers. As long as a sentence was passed prior to the persons death, even moments before killing them, then it counts.

Most initial civilizations developed along rivers but that doesn't appear to be the case with Crete. What made the Minoans a seeming exception to this pattern?

This may be slightly outside the scope of this subreddit, but I've recently been reading several of Antony Beevor's second world war books, including Stalingrad, Berlin: The downfall and The Second World War, and was just wondering how credible a historian Beevor is considered to be?

I'm not making a statement on the religion today, I'm just curious about the political/social/class context of Islam's advent and what groups/classes would support the movement and which ones would resist it?

Did regulations concerning alcohol and beards for men have wider social implications? Did the beard regulation, for example, target a certain class or was it simply a holdover from Judaism?

I know it's hard to speak of class in tribal societies, and I know about the divisions between certain tribes, but I guess I'm speaking about divisions within tribes.

It just seems strange to me.

Recognizing, of course the Latin language as the basis for the Romantic languages. As Rome expanded, did the term "Latin" follow them? If so, why was it jettisoned as a descriptor for Turkish, Italian, French, German, North African, Eastern European, Persian and Semitic peoples and not Iberian peoples?
edit: grammar.

The foundational languages of Italian and Hindi are Latin and Sanskrit, respectively. So much was known about them, probably because they were liturgical languages. Then why isn't much known about the foundational languages of the ancient Germanic tribes? Celtic tribes? Slavic tribes?

Just programs like Game of Thrones usually have all soldiers, guards and knights in a standardized uniform with their lords heraldry and colours.

I assumed this is just so you can tell who works for who but was real life like this, or would a battlefield be a nightmare of banners and colours?